What? No. I meant relating what the red cross is doing to the comic code authority is a slippery slope. The CCA banned the words "crime", "terror", etc... The ICRC mearly wants humanitarian law recognized in games, rather than ignored entirely. Also, the CCA was mandatory, ICRC is talking to publishers who have the right to refuse. Comparing the two is like saying an ant bite is the same as a snake bite.
According to the ICRC article the quote above is from. Here
Won't this make the games preachy or boring?
"Our intention is not to spoil player's enjoyment by for example, interrupting the game with pop-up messages listing legal provisions or lecturing gamers on the law of armed conflict..."
Therefore, your liking of the ICRC to the CCA is an overreaction.
Perhaps I should rephrase it to "realistic" war simulations? The semantics are irrelevant, I'm trying to aptly describe games based on real world conflicts based in past, present, or realistic near futures.
The ICRC is actually only pushing this for "real-war" simulations. I don't think Madworld is very realistic, as much as I'd love my own chainsaw gauntlet.
Though I don't agree with the whole lobbying congress to make it law thing, I think it could work for some games. As long as the developers are ok with it, adding war crime laws to video games could be educational and add to the realism.